Find a Lawyer

Criminal Reference made by Director of Prisons, Bahawalpur, decided on 13th May, 1950.

S. 120 (1)‑Person undergoing sentence of imprisonment ordered to furnish security and in default to undergo imprisonment‑Imprisonment in default of security to commence on expiration of first sentence.

A I R 1937 Sind 203 and A I R 1937 Sind 203 ref. to.

One Rahim Bakhsh was convicted under section 379, Indian Penal. Code by Mr. Dilshad Ali Kureishy Magistrate, 1st Class with section 30 powers on 29^th of June 1949 and was sentenced to one year s rigorous imprisonment. On 13C, of September 1949 ,the sane man was, tried under section 109, Criminal Procedure Code by another Magistrate of Khanpur and was ordered on 13th of September 1949 to furnish security to maintain good behaviour for a period of one year, otherwise to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the same period. The Magistrate also ordered that in default of furnishing security, the sentence in that case shall commence after the expiration of the sentence passed by the Magistrate with section 30 powers, under section 379, Indian Penal Code. This is a reference by the Director of Prisons, Bahalwalpur stating that the sentence of imprisonment under section 109, Criminal Procedure Code in default of furnishing security by Rahim Bakhsh should be treated to have been served by the convict concurrently with the sentence passed by another Magistrate under section 379, Indian Penal Code. I do not agree with this view. Section 120 (1) Criminal Procedure Code reads :‑

" If any person in respect of whom an order requiring security is made under section 106 or section 118, is, at the time such order is made, sentenced to, or undergoing a sentence of, imprisonment, the period for which such security is required shall commence on the expiration of such sentence '.

This subsection is a clear reply to the reference of the Director of Prisons and the order of the Magistrate is perfectly in accordance with law. I feel fortified in my view by A. 1. R. 1937 Sind 204 Emperor v. Luskro and A. I. R. 1937 Sind 204 Emperor v. Husain Allah Dino in which the same question had arisen and it was held, that when a suspected person against whom an order for security under section 118, Criminal Procedure Code has been passed is undergoing imprisonment for a substantive offence the period for which the security is required commences not from the date of the order of security, but from the date of the expiration of the sentence which the suspect is undergoing for the offence. If the suspect fails to give security on or before the date on which the period for which security is to be given commences, he shall, if he is already in prison, be detained in prison until such period expires or until within such period he gives his security to the Magistrate who made the order requiring it.

Rahim Bakhsh no doubt can tender security to the Officer in‑charge of the Jail under section 123 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. So long as the security is not furnished by him in accordance with law, his detention in prison shall continue till the sentence is served.

Reference to be replied in the light of the aforesaid remarks.

K.M.A. Reference answered.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.